In “How to compare technologies in Climate Crisis scenarios?”, we described how we organized our technology comparison process.
Faced with such different solutions, we created technical sheets structured around nine points of analysis that were important for understanding, for example, that in a climate disaster scenario, characteristics normally valued in a technology are not always the most relevant. In many cases, a solution with lower transmission capacity can be more useful than a more sophisticated one, as long as it keeps working when power, connectivity, and infrastructure are no longer available.
With the sheets completed, we began to observe not only what each technology was capable of doing, but under what conditions it was able to do so.
It was at this point that some patterns began to appear. But what were these patterns?
By revisiting the technical sheets, we noticed that certain characteristics appeared repeatedly when we thought about the challenges of a climate disaster response.
Could a technology be carried by a single person, or how many would it take?
Could it operate with alternative power sources?
How long would it keep working if the power grid were unavailable?
Would it require specialized training, or could it be quickly used by response teams and local organizations?*
Would it be capable of integrating with other equipment and systems?
These questions led us to organize the analysis around a few central criteria: mobility, energy autonomy, ease of deployment, operational simplicity, and capacity for integration with other technologies.
More than measuring performance or transmission speed, these criteria sought to answer a practical question: what happens when a technology needs to work under real emergency conditions?
It was based on this reading of the sheets that we began identifying which solutions had characteristics most compatible with the scenarios we intend to investigate in the next phases of the Tridecs project.
For example, Wi-fi networks stood out for their ease of integration with devices that are already part of people’s daily lives. Phones, tablets, and computers can connect without the need for additional equipment. In addition, the equipment evaluated showed important characteristics for emergency scenarios, such as low weight, the possibility of being powered by different energy sources, and relatively quick installation in outdoor environments.
The HT Radio brought a different set of characteristics. In the sheets, aspects related to infrastructure independence, operational simplicity, and reliability of voice communication stood out. Even in situations without internet access or mobile phone coverage, radios remain capable of establishing direct communication between field teams.
LoRa , in turn, presented a different combination of attributes. Its low power consumption, its ability to operate in mesh networks, and its potential for transmitting telemetry and location data pointed to possibilities that went beyond communication between people. The sheets also showed applications related to environmental monitoring and to tracking teams and equipment distributed across large areas.
TV White Spaces ( TVWS ) also showed relevant characteristics. Its ability to operate in areas with physical obstacles and across extensive regions emerged as an important advantage. However, when we looked at aspects such as mobility, portability, installation time, and complementary infrastructure requirements, challenges emerged that deserve further investigation before application in first-response scenarios.
By the end of this stage, the question was no longer which technology was “most suitable.” The question had turned into another one: which technologies showed, at this point in the research, the characteristics most compatible with the criteria defined for the field tests?
Based on this analysis, three of the four technologies that stood out in the evaluation were selected to advance to Phase 2 of the project: Wi-Fi, Rádio HT, and LoRa.
This choice does not reflect a competition between them. On the contrary. Each one responded differently to the questions raised throughout the research and showed characteristics that can complement each other in building resilient communication strategies for climate crisis scenarios.
But the selection does not close the evaluation process. It marks the beginning of a new stage. If the technical sheets helped us understand the potential of each technology, the Phase 2 tests will seek to understand their limits.
How do these systems behave when operating under conditions associated with the climate disasters that motivate the project?
What happens when they need to work in environments with intense heat, smoke, high humidity, persistent rain, flooded areas, or land affected by landslides?
How do they respond when available power is limited, when equipment needs to be moved quickly, or when part of the infrastructure stops working?
Another important question involves the interaction between the technologies themselves. Since the beginning of the research, the results have indicated that communication resilience is unlikely to result from a single solution. For this reason, the next phase does not intend to evaluate Wi-Fi, Rádio HT, and LoRa in isolation only. The goal is also to observe how they can operate as a set of complementary tools, in which different technologies take on distinct roles and work together to keep communication active even when one of them encounters limitations.
More than testing equipment, Phase 2 will seek to understand whether it is possible to build a resilient communication ecosystem capable of adapting to the conditions found in floods, landslides, and fires, maintaining the flow of information needed to support response actions and the protection of life in affected areas.
However, before sharing those findings, in upcoming entries of the Project Diary, we will present each of the selected technologies in more detail. We will explore how they work, which characteristics caught our attention during the research, and which questions we hope to answer once they are put to the test in the field.
See you then!